N2272V

This was the question:

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on "Fox News Sunday," I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I've got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?

There's a new book out, I suspect you've already read, called "The Looming Tower." And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...

CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.

WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

Here is what Clinton could have said: "Chris, there is a lot of second guessing going on by both sides. All I can say is that we did everything we could to protect the American. No one could have imagined that our enemies would be capable of such a heinous act as that which occurred on Sept. 11th."

That's it. End of subject.

But no, that is not good enough for a pathalogical liar who is paranoid and thinks Rupert Murdoch put Chris up to this line of questioning. He had to go into a ten minute rant about how much he did and how others were to blame for 9-11.

Transcript: FOXNews.com - Transcript: William Jefferson Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday' - FOX News Sunday | Chris Wallace

cpal_747

Was Clinton President just before or during Sept 11? How much slack are you willing to cut Bush on his non-action and ignoring of Al Quaeda? Just remember, prior to Sept 11, Bush was known for taking more vacation time than any President in history.

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

N2272V

It's retarded to BLAME anyone for what happened on 9-11. The point is not about what Clinton did or didn't do, that is HIS issue. The point is his rant when asked a question just about everyone else was asked and answered in a civil manner.

I think everyone, especially people like you and me, could not have imagined what happened on 9-11 to be possible prior to that event. I wish we would have been MORE aggressive and had killed Bin Laden when the chance presented itself. Maybe 3,000 Americans, and 2,800 troops would be alive today had we succeeded. But that is hind sight and as we all know, hind sight is perfect isn't it?

STEVEJ

No less than three times during the ten-minute squabble, Bill Clinton candidly acknowledged his unsuccessful attempts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and pull the plug on Al Qaeda during his presidency, each time underscoring his sworn responsibility to have done so, and his deep regret at having not succeeded.

"I tried and I failed to get bin Laden," he told Wallace a third time, his words unencumbered by either sanctimony or spin. "I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

This is why Bill Clinton left office with a 66 percent approval rating (higher than that of any departing president since such polling began) and now commands the world stage like a rock star. It is also why our current president's numbers are sinking faster than a wagon wheel stuck in Texas mud.

When it comes to American presidents, history has proven time and again that the strongest leaders are those who cop to their weakest moments.

Harry S. Truman kept a famous sign on his desk--"The Buck Stops Here"--as a reminder to all who visited that he would not duck accountability for whatever his presidency produced. Despite his mistakes (his unauthorized invasion of Korea, his support of the Communist witch hunts--take your pick), this is what earned the plain-spoken haberdasher from Missouri his legacy as one of our greatest presidents.

A decade later, John F. Kennedy held a news conference within days of the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, taking full responsibility for the fiasco. This candid contrition not only sparked a skyrocket in Kennedy's poll numbers, but it also earned him the respect and authority he'd need 18 months later, when he carefully steered the nation through the touch-and-go Cuban Missile Crisis.

Then there was Ronald Reagan in 1987, who after a few false starts ultimately took a pass on the "I am not a crook" option of his Republican predecessor and sucked up the blame for the convoluted Iran-Contra mess.

The guy wound up on a stamp.

And, yes, despite his initial--and notorious--finger-wagging denial of the Monica Lewinsky debacle, Bill Clinton eventually begged the nation's forgiveness for his lies and lapses (some say ad nauseam) and the country lapped it up. America loves its reformed sinners, and it's no accident that Clinton achieved the highest approval rating of his eight-year presidency--73 percent--directly after his impeachment.

By contrast, George W. Bush continues to pass the buck. Not once in six years has this president looked the nation squarely in its eye and, without mitigation or fuzzy language or manufactured sound bites, plainly uttered the words, "I failed."

Not with Abu Ghraib. Not with Katrina. Not with Iraq.

This is why Bill Clinton's clash with Chris Wallace last weekend was so inspiring. Not because of the long-overdue payback to the relentlessly partisan Fox News (which was admittedly gratifying), nor the way the unexpected spat spiced up an otherwise boring night at the tube.

But, rather, because amid the poking and prodding, the raised eyebrows and the clenched jaw, the man simply said he'd tried and failed--and that he was sorry. This is something that our current president has never had the courage to do.

Criton

It's amazing how two people looking as the same thing can see such diametrically different things.

N2272V

Not when you realize how deep in denial most leftists like Steve are. This is what you call spinning the FACTS. Most of us saw this insensitive and threatening rant for what it was.

Leftists defend this insensitive rant as a deserved slap down of Chris Wallace, the SON of Mike Wallace of 60 minutes fame and hardly a right winger, and Fox News, the perceived evil empire of Ruport Murdoch, a CONSERVATIVE (In Leftist speak, this is far worse than terrorism)!

The other fascinating thing is that to Leftists, it's not the failure that matters, it's that he asked for forgiveness and he tried and he admitted to his mistakes.

But if a Republican were to admit a mistake, the media would have a field day with it. The headlines would be "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!"

What is amazing is that they still defend this pathological liar with every Leftist breath until their dying day.

Forget the fact that thanks to him, the Congress had, for the first time in decades, become controlled by the Republicans.

Letfists today have convinced themselves that losing is winning, and winning, is somehow losing. They have convinced themselves that America is the real evil in the world and terrorists deserve the same rights that American citizens enjoy.

Denial leads to ignorance, and within the Democratic Party, and the Leftists who support them, ignorance appears to be blissful.

cpal_747

How would you suggest that Clinton should have handled that interview, on a question that had nothing to do with why he was there in the first place?

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

STEVEJ

The Right Wing spin machines try to portray former President Clinton at least as inept-and even to insinuate purposeful neglect-when it comes to countering Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin. They would have us believe that President Clinton had no interest in fighting terrorism at all. According to the Talking Points, Mr. Clinton was far more interested in Monica Lewinsky than fighting Al Qaeda. Of course, the truth is very different. President Clinton tried to counter Bin Ladin at every opportunity.
Remember, he had to operate in a pre-9/11 political climate. He had to build a consensus to support military action, when he took it. He had to fight the accusations that he was "wagging the dog." When Bush came into office, he didn't make anti-terrorism a priority at all. In fact, he remained on vacation and didn't add any "Alerts" when in the month before the attacks he was given information stating that Osama Bin Ladin was determined to strike in America. So to that point, he did less than Clinton.

Now, for the big difference. The attacks on September 11th. Almost the entire world was fully behind America. The worldwide consensus was unprecedented. There was no question in Congress. Bin Ladin would be pursued to the ends of the earth. So President Bush had the full support of the vast majority of the world. He had the authority to bring the full strength of the American military to bear against those who did the acts. And what has he done? I mean, besides not get Bin Ladin. Not "dead or alive" or anything. When he was widely believed to be in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, troops were pulled to prepare for the Iraq invasion. So with everything on his side, with everything behind him-Bush didn't get him.
Now when I think about it, the stench of the hypocrisy is as apparent as can be. I hope more people can come to the realization.

ARIUS

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.

__________________
Fly Air North,Yukon's Airline

N2272V

Chris, we did everything we could to address Osama Bin Laden. We were not successful.

THE END!

No need for a ten minute rant insulting Chris and insulting Fox News. How stuck on stupid do people have to be to see this was a paranoid pathalogical liar at work?

Planecrazy

The neo-conservatives (ie. fascists) have adopted the propaganda procedures of the National Socialists of the 1930s:

1. Exploit and agrandize the threat of an external enemy.

2. Claim that your opposition is a bunch of left wing pu**ies with no desire to defend the country from its enemies both internal and external.

3. Claim you are the only ones fierce enough to defend us, even if that requires suspending "some" civil liberties.

4. All the while repay your corrupt corporate sponsors by letting them do whatever they want, especially under the title of "Free Trade" and a "World Economy."

5. Whenever anyone protests, attack them personally and defame them at every opportunity.

If you don't believe the above, study Nazi Germany and, after that, if you still don't believe it, you are a neo-conservative or very gullible.

P.S.: Harry Truman did NOT invade Korea! North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950 and in December 1950 Communist China stopped their charade of independence and also invaded with over a million troops. Dwight Eisenhower was elected president against Adali Stevenson, not Harry Truman who had been gerimandered out of a second term by a republican passed Constitutional amendment. Part of his platform: I will get our troops out of Korea! Don't even get the idea Eisenhower would have supported the Iraq invasion. Read his books and you would see he too would rate Bush an idiot.

"Those who fail to study history are condemned to repeat it." Harry Truman

Hapag-Lloyd

No, that´s George W. Bush´s line:

"We did everything to stop Osama Bin Laden. I personally spoke to our family´s close friend Bandar "Bush", Saudi ambassador to the US. I told him to stop this muslim superiority claim prevalent in Saudi Arabia, and use his influence on the royal Saudi court and make the Saudi Royals stop funding the terrorists. On several council meetings, and I have access to them since we do a lot of business with Saudi Arabia and especially the Bin Ladens, I have told Osama Bin Laden´s relatives that an attack on the USA would not be feasible, or tolerated, and it would be very bad for our mutual business should a family member of them be involved. I would not be able to help them and protect them from American crime investigation, should this ever happen; they have to be aware of this. Although it was us who created the monster during the Afghan War, we need to utilize all resources to make it stop before something ugly happens, which is why I gave Mr O´Neill, who is the most competent person on Arab terrorism, all authorities and resources necessary to fight these terrorists down. I also call on Pakistan and Egypt and other nations, who are formally our allies, to make a choice: you can only continue to benefit from being our ally if you stop supporting our enemy, which is terrorism and Al Qaida. You will have to make a choice, and you will have to make it fast, since we are no longer ready to give money and support to those who fund and support our enemies. May God bless us all."

__________________
THIS SPACE 4 RENT!!!

silverbird707

[quote=Planecrazy;469141]The neo-conservatives (ie. fascists) have adopted the propaganda procedures of the National Socialists of the 1930s:
1. Exploit and agrandize the threat of an external enemy.
Saddam Hussein has Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of Mass distruction - George W. Bush Address to the Nation 2003

2. Claim that your opposition is a bunch of left wing pu**ies with no desire to defend the country from its enemies both internal and external.
Rush Limbaugh on his radio broadcasts in reference to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and his Administraton

3. Claim you are the only ones fierce enough to defend us, even if that requires suspending "some" civil liberties.
George W. Bush and D. Cheeny

4. All the while repay your corrupt corporate sponsors by letting them do whatever they want, especially under the title of "Free Trade" and a "World Economy."
Haliburton comes to mind

5. Whenever anyone protests, attack them personally and defame them at every opportunity.
George W. Bush, D. Cheeny and Rush Limbaugh

If you don't believe the above, study Nazi Germany and, after that, if you still don't believe it, you are a neo-conservative or very gullible.

Is there a recurring theme here? hmmmmmm

__________________
Saturday mornings rocked!

Jeff H

Now, now....just check out the following website, and the difference can be seen!


Welcome to Bush is Lord

lollomz

?????????

Lollo

__________________
TRIJETS LOVER!

N2272V

[quote=silverbird707;469268] Gee, here's what democrats were saying, not to mention they voted overwhelmingly to go to war. I guess these are just "inconvenient truths" for you eh?:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Kerry on! Denial leads to ignorance and Leftists wallow in both.

cpal_747

[quote=N2272V;469657] Condi today
"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.
Condi pre 9/11
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

N2272V

[quote=cpal_747;469718] Yes this was in a memo. So what is the relevance? This is old fodder. The fact remains that the memo contained NO details, NO specifics and was just another of many warnings.

Only someone profoundly uninformed can think that one can act on this information in any sepcific way or that this memo could have somehow prevented 9-11 from occurring.
"Kerry" on. Denial leads to ignorance. Don't do ignorance.

STEVEJ

So the appropriate thing to do is demote the National Security advisor out of the cabinet, have Attny General slash 65 million out of the FBI's anti-terrorism budget and have your Sec of Defense push the "Star Wars" missle defense ahead of everything else.

I guess it would be safe to assume then that Osama could not have used his ICBM's on 9/11. Condi was on top of it alright, we were just looking at it from a different angle. If Bill had had that missle defense system 9/11 would never have happened , right ?